Create favourite view

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the visible view is left untouched and the operation costs 'One undo step', which tells the agent the action is reversible via rillsoft_history_undo. It stops short of describing duplicate-name failure behavior or the response, so a 4 rather than 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action and captured state are front-loaded in the first clause, and the related-tool routing that follows is useful rather than filler. The single em-dash-chained sentence runs long and mixes action, precondition and cross-references, costing a point on structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter create tool with an output schema, the description covers what is captured, the non-destructive effect on the current view, the undo cost and the sibling tools for the follow-up actions. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'name' parameter is already documented including the 'must not be empty and must not exist yet' constraint, so the schema carries the burden. The description only restates that the state is stored 'under name', adding no format or naming-convention detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Saves the visible view as a favourite view under name') and enumerates exactly what state is captured: view type, grouping, filter, time window, column layout, time scale. It is plainly distinguishable from the sibling favourite_select/delete/list tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit routing: shape the view beforehand with rillsoft_view_state_apply and rillsoft_view_columns_apply, switch to a favourite via rillsoft_view_favorite_select, remove it via rillsoft_view_favorite_delete. The conditions that select each alternative are named, not implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.